1951 (2) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Court rejects challenge to assessment order under Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939

The court declined to set aside the assessment order under Section 27 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, as it was found not to be ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 28 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939.2. Application under Section 27 to set aside assessment order.3. Refusal to state the case to the High Court.4. Applicability of Privy Council's interpretation to Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act.5. Rejection of the petition with costs.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment involves an application under Section 28 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, challenging an order of the Member, Assam Board of Agricultural Income-tax, declining to state the case to the High Court. The petitioner sought to set aside the assessment order for the year 1943-44 under Section 27 of the Act, which was declined by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Assam. The Member of the Board also refused to state the case to the High Court, stating that no point of law arose from the Commissioner's order and it was not prejudicial to the petitioner as per Section 28(2) of the Act.2. The judgment references the Privy Council's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust, highlighting the interpretation of the term 'prejudicial to the assessee.' The court found the Privy Council's interpretation applicable to the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, emphasizing that an order must worsen the assessee's position to be considered prejudicial. The judgment notes the statutory effect of this interpretation in the Indian Income-tax Act and rejects the contention that the absence of a similar proviso in the Assam Act alters the interpretation under Section 28(2).3. The court concluded that the refusal to interfere with the assessment order did not enhance the assessment or prejudice the petitioner, aligning with the Privy Council's interpretation. Therefore, the court declined to order the Assam Board of Agricultural Income-tax to state the case to the High Court. The petition was rejected, and costs were awarded. Justice Ram Labhaya concurred with the decision.In summary, the judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 28 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, drawing parallels with the Privy Council's interpretation under the Indian Income-tax Act. It elucidates the criteria for an order to be considered prejudicial to the assessee and concludes by rejecting the petition and awarding costs.